YES Network.com

Apr 30, 2012 -- 8:51PM, Lola wrote:

Be happy Loon.... just think of all the bad deals Cashman didn't make. He didn't trade for Santana.... hey there's an idea. Make it happen Cashman, surely the farm hasn't been completely depleted.

Why would trading for Santana have been a bad thing?

May 1, 2012 -- 10:06AM, NYYGuy wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 10:00AM, 61in61 wrote:

Apr 30, 2012 -- 8:51PM, Lola wrote:

Be happy Loon.... just think of all the bad deals Cashman didn't make. He didn't trade for Santana.... hey there's an idea. Make it happen Cashman, surely the farm hasn't been completely depleted.

Why would trading for Santana have been a bad thing?

Ask the Mets what they think of paying $137M for 6 years of a guy past his prime and battling injuries over the last couple of years.

 

 

 

In his first 3 years with the Mets he was 40-25/2.85. That's a lot more than what the Yanks got out of AJ and a host of other starting pitchers the Yanks have tried. The principal components of that trade have all had their share of  injures, ineffectiveness or been traded. You can't predict what scenarios would have changed. Maybe Santana doesn't get hurt with the Yankees. Maybe the Yanks make the post season in 2008 with Santana. Looking back it doesn't look like such a bad trade to me.

For all the talk about Cashman being overrated,Theo Epstein was even more so. Most of the 04 was put together being he even got to the Red Sox. And all the talk about how he wooed Schilling to the Red Sox when he was close to going to the Yankees is also bull. The Diamondbacks owner was NEVER going to allow him Schilling to be trade to NY as he hated George with a passion. Dan Duquette had far more to do with the Sox winning in 04 then Theo did and the Beckett/Lowell trade was made while he had stepped down. If I had to pick Cashman or Theo I'd pick Cashman every time.

May 1, 2012 -- 10:34AM, 61in61 wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 10:06AM, NYYGuy wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 10:00AM, 61in61 wrote:

Apr 30, 2012 -- 8:51PM, Lola wrote:

Be happy Loon.... just think of all the bad deals Cashman didn't make. He didn't trade for Santana.... hey there's an idea. Make it happen Cashman, surely the farm hasn't been completely depleted.

Why would trading for Santana have been a bad thing?

Ask the Mets what they think of paying $137M for 6 years of a guy past his prime and battling injuries over the last couple of years.

 

 

 

In his first 3 years with the Mets he was 40-25/2.85. That's a lot more than what the Yanks got out of AJ and a host of other starting pitchers the Yanks have tried. The principal components of that trade have all had their share of  injures, ineffectiveness or been traded. You can't predict what scenarios would have changed. Maybe Santana doesn't get hurt with the Yankees. Maybe the Yanks make the post season in 2008 with Santana. Looking back it doesn't look like such a bad trade to me.

That ERA is good, but not 6/$137M good. The Yankees would have paid all of that and then some and there was zero chance he would have lived up to that contract. And let's not forget that the Yankees would have not been getting the 2004 Johan Santana in his prime.  They were getting a guy who was showing signs that he had already past the high point in his career.

We'll never really know what the Twins wanted from the Yankees for Santana. Personally I think it would have been a lot more than just Hughes. And sure, maybe they would have made the playoffs in 2008 with Santana. I doubt it though. Do you really think they were better than the Rays and Red Sox? Even if they did get in I certainly didn't see them winning a championship. That team couldn't hit a lick and their rotation after Mussina was atrocious, especially after they lost CMW and Joba.

May 1, 2012 -- 11:23AM, NYYGuy wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 10:34AM, 61in61 wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 10:06AM, NYYGuy wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 10:00AM, 61in61 wrote:

Apr 30, 2012 -- 8:51PM, Lola wrote:

Be happy Loon.... just think of all the bad deals Cashman didn't make. He didn't trade for Santana.... hey there's an idea. Make it happen Cashman, surely the farm hasn't been completely depleted.

Why would trading for Santana have been a bad thing?

Ask the Mets what they think of paying $137M for 6 years of a guy past his prime and battling injuries over the last couple of years.

 

 

 

In his first 3 years with the Mets he was 40-25/2.85. That's a lot more than what the Yanks got out of AJ and a host of other starting pitchers the Yanks have tried. The principal components of that trade have all had their share of  injures, ineffectiveness or been traded. You can't predict what scenarios would have changed. Maybe Santana doesn't get hurt with the Yankees. Maybe the Yanks make the post season in 2008 with Santana. Looking back it doesn't look like such a bad trade to me.

That ERA is good, but not 6/$137M good. The Yankees would have paid all of that and then some and there was zero chance he would have lived up to that contract. And let's not forget that the Yankees would have not been getting the 2004 Johan Santana in his prime.  They were getting a guy who was showing signs that he had already past the high point in his career.

We'll never really know what the Twins wanted from the Yankees for Santana. Personally I think it would have been a lot more than just Hughes. And sure, maybe they would have made the playoffs in 2008 with Santana. I doubt it though. Do you really think they were better than the Rays and Red Sox? Even if they did get in I certainly didn't see them winning a championship. That team couldn't hit a lick and their rotation after Mussina was atrocious, especially after they lost CMW and Joba.

"their rotation after Mussina was atrocious, especially after they lost CMW and Joba." That's the whole point. With Santana in there I'm sure he would have made up the 6 game defecit to at least get a WC. With better starting pitching the Yanks would have had a very good chance. The Cardinals just squeaked in last year and won the WS.